Jan Beulich wrote:
> While there's a certain level of control on what DT_* may appear in the
> vDSO, not even considering other than the above types seems fragile to
> me. Since future additions to the set are supposedly following a fixed
> scheme (distinguishing pointers and values via the low bit when below
> OLD_DT_LOOS, and using sub-ranges when between DT_HIOS and
> OLD_DT_HIOS), at least also handling those would seem like a good
> idea, as would warning about unrecognized types.
>
I wasn't aware of this scheme. Where is it documented?
> Also, even though it shouldn't matter for the final result, if doing things
> spec-conforming here you should use d_un.d_ptr.
>
Yes, I've already fixed that.
> In addition to Roland's remarks about missing symbol table relocation, I
> would also assume section headers, if present, should be relocated.
>
Yes, I suppose that's easy enough to add.
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
